Freedom House, a U.S.-based non-governmental organization, annually publishes reports assessing political rights and civil liberties across the globe. These reports influence international perceptions of democratic governance, shaping narratives on press freedom, human rights, and electoral integrity. However, from an Indian standpoint, the credibility of Freedom House’s evaluations has been questioned due to apparent inconsistencies and a perceived bias in how India is rated compared to its neighbors, particularly Bangladesh. Notably, Freedom House receives grants from USAID, which has recently been in the news for funding anti-government activities in India, further raising concerns about the objectivity of its assessments.
Freedom House’s Ratings: India vs. Bangladesh
In recent years, Freedom House has downgraded India’s status from ‘Free’ to ‘Partly Free,’ citing concerns over press freedom, political rights, and civil liberties. Bangladesh, despite facing persistent issues such as electoral violence, suppression of opposition, and state control over media, has often received relatively lenient assessments. This disparity raises concerns about the objectivity of Freedom House’s methodology and the geopolitical motivations behind its rankings.
Discrepancies in Assessing Political Rights and Electoral Integrity
India, the world’s largest democracy, conducts free and fair elections with high voter participation and a robust institutional framework. Despite this, Freedom House has repeatedly criticized India’s electoral processes, pointing to alleged voter suppression and communal tensions. In contrast, Bangladesh has witnessed controversies surrounding rigged elections, mass arrests of opposition leaders, and suppression of dissent. Yet, Freedom House’s criticism of Bangladesh’s electoral integrity has not been as severe as its critique of India, raising questions about selective scrutiny.
Distorted Representation of India's Sovereignty
A consistent issue with Freedom House’s reports has been its depiction of India's territorial boundaries. The organization has repeatedly presented a distorted map of India, omitting Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of the country. This misrepresentation aligns with anti-India propaganda and disregards India's sovereign stance on the region. By manipulating cartographic representation, Freedom House not only undermines its credibility but also reinforces suspicions about its underlying agenda against India.
Media Freedom and Press Restrictions: A One-Sided Evaluation?
Freedom House has repeatedly cited alleged press restrictions in India as a reason for its downgraded status. While concerns over journalist safety and certain regulatory interventions exist, India’s media landscape remains one of the most diverse and independent globally. In contrast, Bangladesh has enforced draconian laws such as the Digital Security Act, leading to arrests and intimidation of journalists. However, Freedom House’s portrayal of press freedom issues in Bangladesh remains comparatively restrained, further emphasizing an apparent bias.
Civil Liberties and Human Rights: Selective Criticism?
India has been criticized for issues related to protests and certain law enforcement actions. Conversely, Bangladesh has witnessed enforced disappearances, persecution of opposition figures, and suppression of freedom of expression. However, these severe human rights violations have not resulted in an equally harsh rating from Freedom House. This selective criticism fuels the perception that the organization disproportionately scrutinizes India while downplaying similar or more severe infractions in Bangladesh.
Geopolitical Influences on Global Perception
India’s rising global influence and independent foreign policy stance have often led to increased scrutiny from Western institutions. Freedom House’s ratings appear to align with broader geopolitical narratives, where strategic considerations shape democracy assessments. India’s democratic framework, despite its challenges, remains resilient, yet it continues to face disproportionately negative evaluations. Meanwhile, Bangladesh’s governance issues, including electoral fraud and curtailment of opposition voices, do not receive the same level of criticism, suggesting a potential bias in framing these reports.
Conclusion
The perceived bias in Freedom House’s reports highlights the need for a more balanced and transparent assessment of democracies. India, as a vibrant democracy, deserves a fair evaluation based on objective parameters rather than politically influenced narratives. While every democracy, including India, has areas for improvement, the inconsistencies in assessing India and Bangladesh raise legitimate concerns about the credibility of Freedom House’s rankings. A more nuanced and unbiased approach is essential to ensure that such reports genuinely reflect ground realities rather than reinforcing predetermined narratives.
Comments